15.10.2026 20:47
In the case concerning the death of 12-year-old Eyüp Can Güner, who worked at a döner shop in the Anamur district of Mersin and was found dead in a shopping arcade, the prosecutor, following the expert report, demanded aggravated life imprisonment for the detained defendant N.U. on the charge of intentionally killing a child. The defendant, who denied the accusations, apologized to the mother; the mother did not accept the apology and demanded an unreduced sentence. The hearing was adjourned.
In the case concerning the discovery of 12-year-old Eyüp Can dead in an arcade in Mersin's Anamur district, after the expert report entered the file, at today's hearing the prosecutor announced his opinion and requested aggravated life imprisonment. While the defendant rejected the accusations and apologized, the mother stated that she did not accept the apology and demanded that he receive a sentence without reduction.
The incident occurred in the early morning hours of July 29, 2025, in the arcade named Osman Sinanoğlu on Atatürk Boulevard in Saray Neighborhood. According to the allegation, suspect N.U. (24) chased 12-year-old Eyüp Can Güner, who worked at a döner shop. N.U. followed Eyüp Can to the arcade's street. During this, the child disappeared from sight. After the incident, when Eyüp Can did not return to his workplace, employees began searching for the child. Employees who entered the arcade found the child lying motionless on the ground floor. The situation was immediately reported to the 112 Emergency Call Center. Medical teams arriving at the scene determined that the little child had lost his life. In the autopsy, it was determined that he died as a result of head trauma, bone fractures in the body, cuts, and internal organ injuries. The detained suspect N.U. was referred to the courthouse on the charge of 'causing death by negligent conduct.' The suspect, brought before the court, was arrested and sent to prison. Security camera footage showed moments of the child walking on the street and then fleeing when the arrested person began chasing him.
PROSECUTOR DEMANDS AGGRAVATED LIFE SENTENCE
The 5th hearing of the case opened at the Anamur High Criminal Court was held today. While Eyüp Can's family, relatives, and party lawyers were present at the hearing, the defendant N.U. participated via SEGBIS. After the file sent to an expert with expertise in forensic medicine, forensic physics, and crime scene investigation, which the court panel had awaited at the previous hearing, arrived, the prosecutor announced his opinion today.
In his opinion, the prosecutor requested that the defendant N.U. be given 'aggravated life imprisonment for the offense of intentional killing committed against a child' under Article 82/1(e) of the Turkish Penal Code.
The prosecutor's opinion included the statements: “There are many contradictory situations between the defendant's defenses and the concrete evidence, and they are aimed at escaping the crime. Although an indictment was drawn up requesting that the defendant be punished under Articles 83/1, 83/2-b, and 83/3 of the Turkish Penal Code within the scope of the offense of 'Intentional Killing by Negligent Conduct,' it is understood that the deceased was caught by the defendant inside the office building, and while his back was turned to the office building's void, when the defendant pushed the deceased, the deceased's center of balance was disturbed and he fell into the central void, then hit the edge of the signboard below and fell to the ground, and as a result of the fatal injuries that occurred, he lost his life; therefore, the defendant committed the offense of intentional killing against a child, and he should be punished pursuant to Article 82/1(e) of the Turkish Penal Code.”
DEFENDANT APOLOGIZED TO THE MOTHER AND REQUESTED ACQUITTAL
In response to the opinion, the defendant N.U. said, “I had come from Adana to Mersin as a döner master. I also have a 12-year-old sibling. It is impossible for me to commit such an act against a child. If I were guilty, I would confess. The incident happened exactly as I described. Eyüp Can was like a sibling to me too; pressure is being exerted through the media. I also want justice for Eyüp Can. I do not want what was done to go unpunished. When the police told me that Eyüp Can had died, I could not believe it. I apologize to his mother; one day when the truth comes out, it will be understood that I am innocent. I request my release and acquittal.”
Mother Güllü Can also asked the court to sentence the defendant for the offense of intentional killing committed against a child and not to apply any reduction. Mother Can said, “I do not accept the defendant's apology either.”
After the parties were heard, the court decided to continue the defendant's detention and adjourned the hearing to a later date so that the lawyers could prepare their defenses against the opinion.
WHAT DID THE EXPERT REPORT SAY?
In the report from the expert committee at the previous hearing, it was stated that Eyüp Can Güner fell from a height of 4 meters from the above-ground entrance floor of the business center, with his back turned toward the inside of the building, hitting the upper part of the signboard resting on the ground-floor pool with his left armpit and body, and then falling headfirst onto the tiled concrete floor. It was also reflected in the report that the identified fatal injury pattern was medically consistent with a mechanism of falling from a height and hitting the ground, and that there were no sufficient medical findings indicating that death occurred as a result of a cutting-piercing instrument injury. It was also included in the report that falling from 4 meters onto a concrete floor could produce not a small thud but a very loud sound between 90-100 decibels (like the sound of a motorcycle or lawn mower, drill breaker). The report also included the statement: “It has been assessed that Eyüp Can's rapid fall of 2.8 seconds from a height of 4 meters from the above-ground entrance floor of the business center, with his back turned toward the inside of the building, could only have occurred with the pressure applied to the upper part of his body from the front.”